[djh] Call me crazy Arlo but I actually enjoy philosophical discussion - including disagreement!
[Arlo] Disagreement can be productive, but at a certain point when you're just going in circles, its time to call it and move on. I'll respond to the few points, but otherwise I'd just be repeating things I've already said. [djh] Here's possibly a great source of the confusion - I'm not calling one context 'Dynamic' and the other context 'static'. Both contexts are static quality and intellectually describe the epistemological and ontological basis of the MOQ. [Arlo] Okay. This is repeating what I had just said, so I take this as agreement. [djh] What I'm saying is that from context one - the thing which is most valuable is Dynamic Quality and from context two - static quality. Paul pretty much says the same thing himself.. [Arlo] No. The thing that is most valuable in each 'context' is the RELATIONSHIP between the Dynamic and static. Static quality is just as important in context one as it is in context two, otherwise that mechanic, the analogue used throughout ZMM, would never be able to repair his motorcycle. What context one does is change the relationship between [Dynamic] Quality and [subjects and objects] static quality. In context two, Dynamic Quality is just as important as it is in context one, otherwise the entire evolutionary hierarchy would collapse. What context two does is change the relationship between Dynamic Quality and [its wake] static quality. By implying a privilege in either context, you completely miss the relevance of each and negate the necessary synthesis between the two. [djh] What is most valuable in each context? That's why I harp on. [Arlo] I've answered this, but I have no doubt you'll continue to harp on. ;-) Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
